Irony Becomes a Brand Code Only When It Reaches the Product
Putting an object where it does not belong can make people smile in a photograph. Building an ironic brand requires that the same object still makes sense when it reaches the shop floor.
London Fashion Week opens today and runs until 21 September. London remains one of the places where fashion, pop culture, craftsmanship and humour coexist with a certain ease. The official schedule will produce plenty of eccentric images, unexpected styling and gestures designed to circulate quickly. Some will last. Others will survive only as long as the photograph that made them amusing.
The difference lies in the product.
Irony becomes a brand code when the twist is built into an object’s shape, material, proportion or use. It should remain legible without a set and, above all, without a caption explaining why we are supposed to smile.
A photograph can carry the joke. The product has to carry everything else
Styling can bring distant codes together, change the scale of an accessory or turn it into part of the set. The image works because it creates a contrast. Remove the set and the product may become entirely ordinary again.
When irony enters the design itself, it changes the project. An exaggerated proportion affects weight and portability. An unexpected material requires different manufacturing processes. A fastening concealed inside a figurative shape has to open properly, withstand use and preserve the effect. The joke starts costing money: moulds, tolerances, tests, packaging and possible defects.
It is an unromantic detail, which makes it rather useful. If the creative twist disappears as soon as prototyping, fitting and industrialisation begin, it was an idea for communication. If it survives those stages and reaches the shelf intact, it can become a language.
A pigeon with an opening in its wing
The JW Anderson Pigeon Clutch does not place an image of a pigeon on a bag. It turns the pigeon into the bag. The body is made from 3D-printed resin, the opening is built into the wing and the legs are silicone.
The twist is immediate: an urban bird so common that it has become almost invisible is treated as an accessory to be carried by hand. Its function is inevitably limited, but it is real. The wing has to open, the body has to hold something and the legs have to withstand use. Even when photographed against a white background, the clutch retains its meaning. It does not need a real pigeon on set. Thankfully.
This does not mean that one viral object is enough to build an identity. If every season simply introduces another animal, irony becomes a catalogue. The code gains strength when the same way of looking at things moves across different products without repeating the same trick.
When the supermarket enters luxury
With Anya Brands, Anya Hindmarch takes familiar consumer brands such as KitKat and Coca-Cola and transfers them into bags, clutches, charms, pouches and other accessories. The brand describes the line as part of the V&A’s permanent collection.
The irony comes from a shift in value. Graphics created for a supermarket shelf enter a fashion product designed to be kept and collected. Recognisable packaging provides the initial connection, but it cannot do all the work. Unless shape, surface and construction transform the reference, the result is simply well-photographed merchandise.
There is another brand issue worth considering. In a collaboration with a household name, the more familiar code can swallow the designer’s identity. The customer sees KitKat before seeing Anya Hindmarch. The product succeeds when it holds both identities together while keeping the designer’s intervention visible.
It is a question of licensing, certainly, but also of visual hierarchy. The partner’s logo brings recognition and memory. The designer has to provide the reason why that object should exist in this particular collection.
The carabiner is not decoration
Chopova Lowena’s Carabiner Skirt works with a less explicit form of humour. In the brand’s official guide, the skirt is described as having 360-degree pleats and a leather belt held together by a ring of carabiners. In the folkloric versions, repurposed Bulgarian textiles are sewn together, hand-pleated and attached to the belt. An adjustable internal elastic supports the fit.
The contrast between folkloric fabric, uniform-like pleating and climbing hardware could have remained a styling device. Instead, it holds the skirt together. The carabiners connect the pleated volume to the belt and become a visual signature. Remove them and more than the appearance changes. The object itself changes.
This is a drier form of humour. It does not ask for a laugh. It creates a small collision between codes that would not normally inhabit the same garment, then makes that collision wearable. The customer does not need to know the full cultural reference to perceive it.
When eccentricity becomes mannerism
An unusual product is not automatically intelligent. It can be uncomfortable, fragile, expensive to manufacture or disconnected from the person the brand wants to dress. It can also perform extremely well on social media and very badly within an assortment.
The critical moment arrives when the idea has to sustain a family of products, a price and a use. A sculptural bag still has an opening, a weight, a capacity and a balance in the hand. A skirt built with metal components has to manage weight on the body, adjustability and movement. An accessory referencing famous packaging has to justify its materials, workmanship and the presence of the partner brand.
Customers do not buy a punchline. They buy an object capable of carrying it without turning them into a supporting character in the look.
Mannerism begins when the brand repeats a recognisable sign even though it no longer adds anything to the product. Eccentricity then becomes a procedure: enlarge the object, distort it, add something incongruous. The first time is surprising. By the fourth, the mechanism is showing.
The caption-free check
To understand whether irony belongs to the brand or only to the image, I would remove the campaign, styling and text. Then I would look at the object against a neutral background.
Is the twist still visible? Has it changed the construction, material, proportion or use? Is the product still wearable and consistent with its price? Can it generate other objects without repeating the same joke? Can the intended customer recognise themselves in it, or do they recognise only the reference?
If the answers hold up, the irony has left the moodboard. It has entered the product.
London knows how to use eccentricity as permission to shift established codes. The interesting part comes later, when that permission has to become an object with a fastening, a size, a cost and a place within the collection.
The rest may be a successful photograph. Tomorrow, it may already need another caption.
Romina Tosi
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article reflect my personal analysis of the information available at the time of publication. The sources consulted are publicly available and may include official documents, trade union communications, press reports and other materials accessible to the public. Artificial intelligence tools were used to support the identification, consultation and preliminary verification of sources, as well as to locate and check the links included in the article. Before publication, I reviewed the relevant sources and verified that the links corresponded to the materials cited. AI assistance does not replace my editorial judgment or my responsibility for the final text. Links were checked at the time of publication and may subsequently be changed, moved or removed by their respective publishers. I do not disclose confidential information or information obtained through privileged professional access. Facts, statements, allegations and opinions are presented according to their nature. References to individuals, companies or specific cases are included to examine matters of broader relevance to the industry. They are not intended to attribute unlawful conduct beyond what is expressly documented in the cited sources. Assessments concerning industrial strategies, financial decisions and production models represent personal opinions, not findings of fact or definitive judgments.
If you identify an error or inaccuracy, please let me know. I will verify the information and correct it where necessary.
The purpose of this article is to contribute to informed discussion, not to harm any individual, company or organisation.
Comments